estradling75

The first principle of the gospel is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ... Not Faith in the Church (even his church)... If you a placing your Faith in the wrong thing you are practicing idolatry, and you will get blindsided. People who conflate the two (Christ and the Church) have always struggled when the Church shows that it made up of flawed and sinful humans.

You are the one asking for hypotheticals and what ifs. The simple fact is God is in control and his plans will roll forth with or without us as individuals. God has also told us that things will get bad enough to deceive even the elect. So we each have a choice we can look to God and work on developing our ability to "Hear Him" or we can look to the world and try to make sense of it...

So you are saying you are seeing a change like going from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Law of Moses... God pretty much saying ok you will not live the higher laws so here is a lesser law... There is some precedence for that at least... But we would also have to recognize it as a step backwards, a condemnation, a loss of light because of disobedience, rather then an advancement.

Because it wasn't God's church that did it... at best it was God's University, (And yes I know people will debate that) following God's command learn, not only by Faith but by studies. Thus to answer your question yes it is OK to follow Gods command to the best of your ablity, even more, so if you are a school devoted to learning

Indeed... Most of the time when it is brought up it is designed to cause the person being attacked to respond emotionally based on presentism, and Hollywood imagery. The program started 60+ years ago... Back then Homosexuallity was classified as a mental illness... and they we trying to find ways to cure it. Now... that line of thought gets you labeled a Homophobic, but that change is really really recent. When people think electroshock therapy they think Hollywood horror stories, but these were scientist working to cure and help people. In their learning they made mistakes and they got things wrong... That is the nature of science. But they did learn and they did change. Today's electroshock therapy is so much better then it was 60+ years ago but it is still being used with some degrees of effectiveness in various cases. But we wouldn't be here now with such without the learning that happened in programs like the one BYU was a part of. Yet people think that a God commands us to learn, and will turn our mistakes to our gain, would for some reason reach down and say "No don't do that, because people 60 years from now will think they are more 'enlightened' then you while completely ignoring the cost it took to gain that 'enlightenment'." And yes that learning includes greater moral/ethical consideration to volunteers used as test subjects.

I agree with what you say and I would like to add to it... One of the things we can not change is how others respond to the trials. People can and do respond differently to what appears to be the same trials. Differences in responses don't have to mean that one response is better then the other, but rather people finding the response that works for them. And if the trial is prolonged the response might even change over time. Let me illustrate this point. I have a hearing loss, and I have had it as long as I can remember, my first response to this trial was crafted by my mom, and my doctor. They chose environmental control, I was a kid... my environment was home, church, and school. My mom reached out to my teachers, and leaders and had arrangements made. They didn't do hearing aids because they were worried that I would get picked on and bullied for being 'different.' Now we can debate the pros and cons of their choices and second guess them all we want.. but our opinions (including mine) on it do not matter, is done and they did what they thought was best for me. Then I went on a mission and I could no longer actively mange my environment so I got hearing aids and have had them ever since. Thus my response has changed... kinda. I have a love/hate relationship with my hearing aids... I love what they offer me, but I hate the cost, maintenance, repairs, feedback, and etc. And they are still not as good as normal hearing... So when given the option I still prefer to manage my hearing loss environmentally. Now back to the topic of implants. Deaf people have had to face this trial for all of humanities mortal existence... They didn't just curl up and die because implants were not a thing. They struggled, they adapted and they figured out how to have meaningful productive lives all with out the option for implant. Those stories are on par with our pioneer stories, or at least they should be if we didn't have a huge hearing bias. But the only people remembering these struggles are the ones drawing strength from them. But there is no match for Pioneer Day for the Deaf.. there is no semiannual youth 'trek' to remember the trials of the Deaf or Hearing Impaired, because this group has always been small. Then you have arrogant hearing people making no effort to understand.. saying just get the implant and the problems just go away... And that is a lie. Implants can be a huge benefit for some people, but it is not normal hearing, its not healing... Its another crutch, its a fancier set of hearing aids, with fancier costs. And Hearing people are try sell this, to people who have already figured out how to adapt to their trials and live productive lives. (Like trying to sell ice to Eskimos) So not surprisingly they do not see upside as all that huge, and means the downsides (like needing surgery) hit that much harder.

And you are entitled to your opinion... But you also know what they say about opinions... The peoples who opinions matter on this subject, the ones who make the decisions when the cases come up... Aren't going to be moved or impressed by your personal insults toward them (crabs indeed) nor are thy going to be seeking or needing your opinion/approval. If you want a any chance of making a difference on this subject you have to convince them that you actually care about them and the way they think... Which you so far have completely failed at in this thread.

Reaching... Deafness is not a life and death issue... and on life and death issue we have the legal system to balance things according to the Rule of Law You mean like he imputed from mine? I suppose that is fair then. Last I checked he was the one asking for insight on why people behave a certain way... But his responses are more about proving himself 'right' rather then trying to understand. I do not disagree with his position or his points (really). But he is not going to change anyone's mind on the issue until he understands he is not dealing with a logical or reasoned response. He is dealing with a highly emotional one, because it is about how they identify themselves. And yes infants/kids aren't going to have that, but in the cases he is worried about the parents do.. and that is whom he has to convince and/or work around (And preferably without a massive violations of anyone's rights)

If that is what you think... then you need to read more closely what I am writing. Life is full of trials... disabilities are just one variation of that... This moral existence is not about making our trials go away... but rather about enduring them and learning from them. @NeuroTypical 's wife is one example of a person that would not trade their trials and experiences from said trials for anything. Yet you seem to think a Deaf person can't/shouldn't feel that way about their Deafness. Now spin that to a Deaf parent of a Deaf child... They will not see their child's disability/trial as a big deal. They have much personal experience on how to live a happy and fulfilled life as a Deaf person which they can use as teach their child... and when the child is old enough to make up their own mind they can.

Right but who decides that we are thriving spiritually? Us? Absolutely! Our Parents when we are young? Absolutely! Some stranger? No way! Adults get the choice... For children their parent/guardian get the choice... that is how it should work for everything... implants are no exception.

Kind of like how an atheist might think a person of faith has a mental illness... and can't understand why they do not want to be cured through logic and reason... But surprise surprise the person of faith does not see faith as 'problem' to be cured

I am hearing impaired... been so for as long as I can remember.. I am not a part of Deaf culture but I am some what adjacent. While questions where asked about Deaf culture and its response to Implants... But it is just a subset of how people embrace Culture Identities and embrace them as personal identities. Case in point there is a LDS culture, many have embraced this as a personal identity (aka 'I am LDS'). So what happens when a persons sense of self is attacked? Generally the same kind of response to a physical attack. Heightened emotional state, lashing out (Verbally/physically), and trying to destroy/remove/defeat the attacker. We occasional see this here when an Antis comes calling. Some (not all) respond just like this. This is not an LDS thing but a Identity thing. We saw this when we tried baptize for the dead some Jews. We saw it as harmless to beneficial but they saw it as an attack on their fundamental identity. In their minds we were making them not Jews any more so they protested it strongly. Now people have made the comparison to amputees. But that does not match well enough because amputees generally do not identify as amputees. They generally identify as abled people with problem/medical condition/disability. So they naturally see fixes as a good thing. The deaf community has lots of people in it, not all have embraced deaf culture as their personal identity. Those are the ones generally accepting of help and assistance with hearing loss. (They see themselves as hearing but with problem)But you also have those that were born and raised in that culture. That is what they know, that is the way things are, that is who they are. That is their identity. (They see themselves as whole and complete just the way they are. [And you might disagree with that... but you do not get a vote on it]) As a general rule you do not convince someone to make major changes in their sense of self, and the way they live by basically calling them stupid, or short sighted (Aka an attack even if you do not see it that way yourself)

To make good choices requires having good information. For example if I think that masks are in the high 90s in effectiveness I would make a different choice then if I think they are only in the low 20s. But we don't get that information.. .we get sound bites... Masks are good/effective... or bad/ineffective... That means we aren't making choices based on good information, but rather feelings and gut reactions.

And that is the big kicker isn't it... What do people mean when they say Mask are/aren't effective? When we talk deadly viruses we naturally want 100% or 99.999% or other really high percentage of effectiveness. The mask that most people wear simply can not do that. But maybe they can do 40% or 50%. Those are not good odds, but they are not nothing thus could be said to be effective to a certain degree.

For me God is in charge and leading his church. My experience with revelation is that it comes line upon line... but I often want to jump ahead.. sometime going so far as to conclude that the Lord told me X... So Y, and Z must also be true... Only to find out I was totally wrong about Y and Z. A variation of this plays out at the church level... The Lord gives a command and we ask why? and we make assumptions about what is coming next. Historically our assumptions and the explanations we get isn't always on target, even when that explanation is from a church leaders, and the guidance/direction/command is of God. The Lord rarely gives his reasoning, but we demand it of our leaders. Which means we can get correct divine guidance but faulty reasoning from our leaders. So for me while I do not agree with the reasons being given (and possibly being flawed) but I see the guidance being of God and so I am going to respond accordingly. Having said that everyone has to navigate these things as they think best and I need to let them.

The Lord has told us he would sift us as wheat... For a very long time those with more leftist leanings had felt this with the "Church" being out of touch with what they 'knew" was right... Now it seems it is turn for those with more right leaning tendencies to be sifted in much the same way... In a different thread the Abraham test we would face was brought up, I see no reason that this sifting couldn't be of Abrahamic levels. After all it must have been very hard for Abraham to truly believe that God did command the killing of Issac when all the promises would come through him. And now we have in this very thread people questioning if God has truly commanded something, because it makes no sense to them and run counters to what they 'know' to be right. Sadly such events have and always will be highly personal... There is not much some one outside and observing the struggle can really do, but listen to them and pray for them.

There was a time not that long ago that lobotomies were considered "effective" treatment for certain aliments. The scientists of the day, pointed to the research and the trials and showed the numbers proving that it was a "effective" treatment. It took much longer to realize and face the horrific long term costs. Will the covid vaccine go that direction? I have no idea. But shutting down the people expressing concerns is not the way to go.

While I realize some people use such one offs to push there agenda, I am not one of them.. my only agenda is to protect me an mine as best I can. Now if a majority of your group end up dying from breakthrough COVID, or shingles or elective scar revision, then I would be concerned (and more then a little confused by that last one). I wish the more main stream media shared your restraint.

Indeed we have data for that NOW.. We did not have that when we started... as for the cost.. we still do not know if there are any long term negative impacts and might make it in retrospect a bad idea no matter how 'effective' it is. (Thanks for being the experimental lab monkey on that one btw) Yet from the beginning those people who recognized there was not enough data, and have concerns about possible long term effects were labeled anti-vaxers, and had the social media platforms censor and remove their content expressing this. And when you have organizations doing such a hard core suppression it becomes natural to wonder what are they trying to hide.

Competent medical professional on the subject of COVID might be hard to find. COVID is new and science takes awhile to settle. Competent medical professional on the subject of YOU should be within the realms of your main doctor (assuming you have one). The doctor that knows you best would be the most competent to advise you.

People who doubt secret combinations only need to look at what has been revealed about Big Tobacco. They did not want to destroy the world, they simply wanted to have power over it. They lied about the product they sold, they had 'scientists' and politicians on their payroll. The only way they were brought to light was that the 'kooks' and 'extremist' did not shut up, in spite of pressure Big Tobacco applied to them. Now a days we are seeing this exact same pressure being applied to those being labelled as 'kooks' and 'extremist' and it is concerning. Not because every 'kooks' and 'extremist' right but rather we are not being allowed to decide for ourselves that whom are 'kooks and 'extremist' whom might have a point.

That is a interesting little factoid. I was wondering what it would take to merit an exception and why someone with something like Guillian Barre wouldn't be. It seems clear BYUH is following the CDC guidelines... Now people might agree or disagree with the CDC guideline but it is the legally wise path for an institution. The Admins at BYUH are not overriding her doctor... the CDC is.

In the scriptures we read the the number of the faithful will be few. The scriptures then compare the faithful to leaven... where a small amount can lift the whole thing. So when it comes to the rest of the world we have to engage... thus we need to make allies and stuff. The problems we run into is when we forget our role to lift in order to stay allies. I think Trump was a good example of this, many of the faithful thought they should ally with him and his movement. There was nothing wrong with that. However too many thought that being an ally meant we shouldn't be trying to lift including making excuses for poor behavior.

When I hear about Church leaders doing something wrong... one of the first things I try to apply is the Golden Rule. I have been in leadership positions, and I have messed up plenty, but I was always trying what I thought was best what I thought the Lord would have me do. I see no reasons why the Administrators of BYU Hawaii would be acting any differently. When I read articles critical of various church leaders, I have to ask myself how unbiased is the article? After all I am living proof that leaders can make mistakes. The one that is linked seems to be less about examining facts then it is about generating outrage. Where in the article do they talk about reaching out to the other side of the story and give the leaders a chance to respond? I see no attempt to do so. So this article reminds me of the trend in news that someone else described as "We are going to tell you how you should feel about something... but you have to figure out if it is true." And frankly I have no desire to let anyone pull my strings in such a manner

Indeed I still remember when Trump won the election against Hilary.. and the utter shock that many had (even here) that Trump could have enough followers to win. While any cult of personality (And every politician is at the head of one) will have its die hard followers.. To win elections you have to tap in to something more. Trump tapped into the wellspring you described and those people saw their lack of trust verified by how the major tech and media tried to silence Trump. Biden tapped into the "He is not Trump" wellspring. That wellspring (that produced Trump as a viable candidate) is still there, being feed a daily diet of so called 'fact checking,' suppression, and lack of any real critical thinking toward the current administration in the media. This means that Trump 2.0 is still very much a possibility. Because until you treat the disease, the symptoms will keep returning